Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

cartechboy writes What if you got into your car and you had to authenticate that it was you behind the wheel? That might be what's coming in the near future as Ford's working with Intel to bring facial recognition to the car. The idea would be to improve safety and in-car tech with this system which is being called Project Mobil. When someone enters a Project Mobil-equipped car the system uses front-facing cameras to authenticate the driver. If the driver can't be authenticated it'll send a photo to the vehicle owner's phone asking for permission for this person to drive the vehicle. Once identified, the car can then automatically adjust certain settings to the driver's preference. This could also theoretically allow parents to control how loud their kids listen to the music while driving, how fast they can drive, and even simply monitor them driving. Obviously this NSA-like surveillance tech is a bit creepy on some levels, but there could be a lot of terrific applications for it. While only an experiment, don't be surprised if your dashboard stares back at you eventually.

Just another way to monitor us every goddamn motherfucking minute of every goddamn motherfucking day of our goddamn motherfucking lives, like we're all little children, or criminals in prison, or animals in a zoo. What's even MORE FUN that that is that we get to pay for this stupid shit! It's a 'solution in search of a problem' and desperately needs to have a giant Gallagher mallet applied liberally to it, along with the fucking morons who thought of this, the NSA, and every goddamn motherfucking gor-suckin

I drop off my car to get serviced and I'll be presented with a picture of the guy driving it into and out of the service bay. Maybe even a test drive.

I park my car and I'm presented with the valet driver. Of course, I hope it's only presented two times -- once when he parks my car and again when he brings my car around. No "ferris bueller" stunts allowed.

In Ferris Bueller, the valet took the car for a ride immediately. It's not like he parked it, then went back and started it again. So this "feature" wouldn't have helped, unless it told you how long he drove it for.

There is already technology available in some high-end models that will monitor the driver and take steps to warn them if they appear to be losing concentration. That technology is surely going to save lives sooner or later, given the amount of road accidents caused by tiredness or falling asleep at the wheel.

I'm as concerned about creepy surveillance and illusory security as much as the next geek, but image recognition technology does have positive applications as well.

Is ti really that hard to just use bluetooth prox and pairing. Not that is better than a key but it's just one less thing you need to keep with you. Seems just as secure as the keyfob. Sure nfc and all that but BT is nearly ubiquitous today.

As someone who has worked in computer vision, this is trivial to detect. You can either use two offset cameras, or take two photos with a single camera with a second or so delay if the target is moving even slightly. Then use the two photos to create a 3D stereoscopic image. If you want more security, you could detect small changes in facial expression, or look for blinks. Most cars already have weight sensors in the front seats, to better deploy airbags based on the size of the driver/passenger, so th

As I already said, a second camera is not needed. A second camera is only needed if the result has to be instantaneous rather than a second or two of delay. This can be done purely in software, for a marginal cost of $0. Most of the software is off-the-shelf, as this is a common problem that has already been solved. Try this experiment: close one eye, then sit down in front of a photo and a real person. How hard are they to tell apar

Never mind security, what about reliability? If I go hiking in the mountains where there is no cell phone coverage and e.g. scratch my face on a tree branch I do not want to get back to the car only to have it fail to recognize me and refuse to start. Frankly I also wonder about whether Ford are thinking clearly about this given the claim in the article that "Ford Motor Company [NYSE:F] already believes the technology can help improve privacy..". How can adding a camera to a car improve privacy? No matter w

I do not want to get back to the car only to have it fail to recognize me and refuse to start.

Except that is not how it works. If it fails to recognize you, it will send your picture to your cellphone and ask you if it is okay for the unrecognized person to use your car. So a scratch on your face is not going to brick your car. A feature like this will almost certainly be user configurable. The options will likely include:1. Disable facial recognition completely2. Send a photo of an unrecognized user to a registered cellphone for approval3. Allow an unrecognized user to use the keypad as a fa

No, it won't. It will send a picture to your insurance company and ask the company if the person behind the wheel should be driving the car. It will start out as you suggested, but the first insurance company to wise up will make Ford a business proposal. We'll get treated to the usual suits saying the usual things about "the future" and what-not. And the result will be we get screwed...yet again.

Oh, dear, while I was out hiking I fell down, bruised my face, and lost my cell phone, but not my keys. I get in the car, it won't start because my face isn't "right." and I have no phone, and the car can't call out because I'm in the mountains.

There is modern camera tech that is being used to monitor monitor people's heart-beats. It's more of a software upgrade than a hardware one. It is possible for these cameras to require seeing a heart-beat in the skin. I recommend watching the entire video.

Man alive, I'm getting sick and tired of all the crap hipster technology we're being subjected to. There was once a time when new technology made us better off. It provided us with tools that let us do more with less. But new technologies these days are all about subjecting us to yet more advertising (even if it's called "online videos" or "social media"), or they're invasive, privacy-destroying devices of one sort or another. Silicon Valley used to be a place where real innovation happened, thanks to the h

Or just forget about all the facial recognition stuff and use the phone itself. We were looking at this back when I was in the auto industry. You can have it detect, via what phones approach which door, a unique identity for each passenger and have custom configuration or access rights for said users. The owner can require or disable the additional use of passwords or other athentication forms (swipe, thumbprint, whatever). And of course you and do various remote access features - for example, if the car is

If I'm going to need to log in to the car anyway, then there's no need to recognize a personal device that I might not have on me, or might have loaned to one of the passengers. They might even be using it for communications, and I don't want to have to get it back from them before approaching the vehicle. The face recognition is superior to any other solution provided you don't actually rely on it for security, or it's actually good enough to be useful for that, because I don't have to have anything but my

Think of it this way: this will be a trivially cheap device to install in a car, and it will be pretty much invisible in how it functions, until someone tries to steal your car. It will probably be bundled with other functions that count your blinks and warn you when you're too drowsy to drive safely. This is the kind of device that will pay for itself many times over in insurance savings. Also, if it records your car data in some hard-coded way, that data could be very useful in fighting wrongful traffic t

If I were sure that I were in control of the data on my car, then that would be fine. If I roll-my-own and it's cryptographically sound and takes 2FA then okay, all is well. If it's got all the personal security of On* then fuckit, fuckit twice, and fuckit thrice.

I would love it if the cars had the cameras and the display with touch preinstalled, and they came out to USB cables in a special little compartment where you install whatever you want, whether that's a dedicated machine designed for the purpose, a

what the hell is wrong with a key? If that key is just too heavy for you to carry how about a key pad to unlock everything?

I don't need the fucking car to update facebook, check to see if I shaved, adjust all the settings, make sure I'm not drunk, or ask the real owner whether or not I can drive it, and then not work if there isn't a WiFi or cell signal present. (I'm sorry but you do not have permission to operate this vehicle as zombies are trying to break in.).

I want my car to be a car, I don't need an ever bigger fucking cell phone to complicate up my life, and not to mention charge me yet another monthly service fee, along with spying on me to send the info to the gov't and marketers.

Most people who might be willing to take something that belonged to somebody else, especially if they felt the person wouldn't find out about it (or wouldn't notice until they had at least gotten away with taking it) are not likely to commit any kind of violent crime, even if not because there are limits on what kinds of immoral practices they might engage in, it could fall to the simple notion they would probably feel less likely to be able to successfully get away with such an act than one that is perfor

Your opposition has been noted. Meanwhile, development continues as if you said nothing.

That's because you are not representative of the market.

Do you stop by a dealership every 6 months and explain that you would buy if it weren't a computer? Or do you not even consider Ford products? After considering, you may realize that you really aren't the market at all.

So, how do you buy a modern car not a computer after that's the only option? Because I'm not the market, and I would love to disrupt this. By buying what I want, instead of typing angrily where Ford is unlikely to see it.

I bought a new Ford in 2006. It is the simplest version of a stripped Ford Ranger. The most 'high tech' feature it has is it's only option upgrade: a CD player in the radio. When I was looking at it in the sales lot the salesman told me 'this is the last of it's kind.' It uses only a simple key to unlock the door and start. I can go to a hardware store and get a key cut from a blank for about $1.50.

And it's the simplest version of a stripped Ford Ranger. Nobody has ever wanted to steal it. It's also

You are right I am not the market they are catering to, but I did buy what I wanted. It took contacting 4 dealers before I could get my 4x4, as all of them wanted me to buy what was off the lot rather than order it.

I picked up a 2011 FJ Cruiser base package, manual transmission, a full set of dealers repair manuals, and a lap top adapter along with a copy of Techstream.

It does what I want it to do, when I want it to do it, and how I want it to do it. (Thanks Techstream) If I am going to make the pa

One benefit is this could adjust the seats and mirrors automatically for each individual driver.

You could do that by giving each of them a key, though. or just let them push a button. I admit I have to hold the button down as the settings shift from one to the next, which is slightly less convenient than simply having the car recognize you, but I have a car from 1997 that's got four presets per front side. The driver's side sets the wheel and mirrors in addition to the seat.

In new cars which are going to come with some sort of standardized infotainment system and which (unlike mine) are all going to have fully-digital clusters soon if not immediately, it will cost basically nothing to add that functionality to the cluster for at least the driver. You can literally use usb webcams with android today, although I don't know how well having multiple cameras actually works ("Since API level 9, the camera framework supports multiple cameras [android.com].") It therefore seems like something which

For at least 20 years, I have had a full beard. Since I am mostly (not entirely) bald on top, I do not get a haircut more than once in two months. When I get a haircut, I also get my beard trimmed somewhat short. Will facial recognition allow me to drive home from the barber shop?

I do not have a mobile phone, smart or dumb. When I leave my house, I want to leave my phone, computer, garden, etc behind me. Where would this feature send the photo?

"Obviously this NSA-like surveillance tech is a bit creepy on some levels" you must be one of them there conspiracy nuts. NSA is not undertaking any surveillance apart from of terrorists. You government loves you, please go back to sleep.

Sales of Chewing Gum and Duct Tape to owners of new Fords rise by 10000%

Being serious for a moment, is there really any demand from the public for this?Is his being driven by the lawmakers who are frankly desparate to stop Drunks from getting behind the wheel?

Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?As the Car not the driver seems to be the boss then who owns the pictures?Who says that the pictures won't be sent to the NSA? Can you be sure.

Will the car refuse to start if the camera is obscured and the driver can't be identified?

Probably... but only if the owner cannot be reached by phone/text message.

Although I realize it's not difficult to imagine scenarios where this would actually cause problems... perhaps the developers of this tech are anticipating that the number of actual complaints which arise as a result of actual experienced difficulty will be small enough that they can still afford to lose those customers' business.

Being serious for a moment, is there really any demand from the public for this?

This is Big Brother. They will try to sell it to you in a thousand different ways, safety, security, convenience... but make no mistake, the government will be able to record, monitor, and control at any time that they choose.

Actually, I didn't even think about how awesome it would be for that. For cars which are actually valet parked often, they could have a dedicated valet button. Everyone else would access it through the infotainment system. When you activated valet mode, it would still permit use of the car, but only up to parking lot speeds. It could also take some snapshots of the driver any time the car was being driven any way other than extremely casually, where laws permit. The limited speed and the fact that one might

Perhaps there is/are (a) Kabuki mask that opens a back door and/or Easter egg. Got to be some kind of bypass for the mechanics etc, else someone isn't going to be too thrilled when their employee has to pause their work again and give permission for the xx time to some mechanic to start their car. Then there is heirs, new owners, repo people,,,

Nothing, because after the 404 the Google Car complied to the mandatory "Arrest Vehicular Criminals Upon Apprehension By Automated Rovers" law and wrapped you up in the seat as a nice present for the cop around the corner.
As long as it isn't the same cop who tried using another Google Car to pursue a criminal...

What's a criminal to do? Gone will be the good old days where a man could feed his family by ripping off one car a week. And our prison system will have to lay off workers and buy less products to feed those that live off of the supposed criminal, justice system.
And not only have companies like GM failed to provide strong locks for cars they have ignition switches that kill the owners of such cars.
I don't want to get too real here and put folks into shock but compare the morals of c

... needs evidence of who was driving a car when it is caught in an infraction by automated systems. In some jurisdictions, not having clear evidence of the identity of a driver is sufficient to have the case thrown out. This is how they will get their evidence.

If the car won't start without positive facial recognition, that rules out the duct tape over the lens fix.

I really hate all this "your" crap in headlines. It won't be coming to my car, because I already have a car and don't need a new one, and when I do get one it probably isn't going to have all this fancy-schmancy crap got-to-be-connected crap in it. It's not so much because I'm a privacy nerd, I'm just cheap.

I think it sounds kind of cool. I really don't have any issues at all with facial recognition as long as it's done in a responsible manner. The data should be volatile and discarded when it's no longer needed. If the car is simply comparing the person behind the wheel to a small set of people it knows and then discarding the data, that seems like excellent tech to me.

even the idea that it might send my picture to the owner of the car doesn't bother me too much. i am after all in someone else's car. Again, it only doesn't bother me if I know that the picture isn't stored, and once it leaves the closed system of the car... Well, i don't have any real assurance that it isn't going to get stored somehow. So it's a little stickier there. Still, if it's just going to the owner and not staying on a server after delivery it sounds ok.

Now, if the car keeps a record of every person who's ever been in it and shares that with the automakers, that's creepy. it's double plus creepy if it also sends it along to the government.

The last thing I need, if I'm injured in a way that disfigures my face, is a car that won't let me start it to drive to the emergency room.

That's right up there with the federal experiment, back in the '60s or so, with mandating seatbelt and seat weight sensors that interlocked with the starter, so you can't start it if all the passengers aren't belted in.

(I, and about five of my friends, were very luck my car dated from before that mandate, the time we were visiting a friend who worked in a trainyard, my car stalled across a track, a train came {slowly but inexorably} around the sharp curve, and my right-front passenger unbelted in preparation to bail if I couldn't get it going again. We didn't have enough time to all bail...)

...with a piece of paper? Unless there are secondary and tertiary sensors to verify the person in the vehicle belongs to the "authorized face", then this "security measure" is more "security theater". To add to this posted thought, I have to wonder if there are more nefarious plans for this technology(either desensitization to having cameras watching each individuals every moment of their lives), or if this is some uneducated idea from someone/multiple people in the Ford marketing department, who believe t

Automakers have been researching facial recognition and eye tracking systems for years, mostly because they can be used to reduce distracted driving. An audible warning whenever drivers take their eyes off the road for more than a few seconds, followed by a steering wheel shudder, taking off the throttle, etc. These systems can also detect drivers who are drunk/under the influence by measuring reaction times (assuming the system is mounted in a vehicle with some sort of collision avoidance radar, which is a